Sloane 2946, 13th century, fols. 209-16, “de philosophia ... auctore Isaaco philosopho.” But the Incipit, “Felix prior aetas qui (quae) tot sapientes ...” is that of Gundissalinus’ treatise. The erroneous ascription to Isaac is probably owing to the fact that the treatise just preceding, at fols. 205-208v, is a translation of a medical work by Isaac. This MS is mutilated towards the close so that the leaves containing our text have the upper right hand corner torn off, thus removing nearly one-sixth of the text. The colophon reads, “Explicit hoc opus a domino Gundissalini apud Tholetum editum, sdens (succedens?) de assignanda causa ex qua orte sunt scientie philosophie et ordo eorum et disciplina.” Similarly in Baur’s text the _De divisione philosophiae_ at pp. 1-142 is followed at pp. 142-44 by Alfarabi’s “Epistola de assignanda causa ex qua orte sunt scientie philosophie et ordo earum in disciplina.” Sloane 2461, late 13th century, fols. 1-38r, contains the _De divisione philosophiae_ under the caption, _Compendium scientiarum_, without indication of the author. It also is immediately followed at fols. 38v-40r by _De unitate_, which Baur found in another MS at the close of Gundissalinus’ _De divisione philosophiae_, and in a third MS before the above mentioned letter of Alfarabi. A MS now lost is, Library of St. Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury, 1175, Gundisalvus de ortu et divisione scientiarum. Cotton Vespasian B-X, fols. 24-27, Alpharabius de divisione omnium scientiarum, is not the treatise of Gundissalinus, as I was at first inclined to suspect that it might turn out to be upon examination. Alfarabi’s _De scientiis_ was published in his _Opera omnia_ by Camerarius at Paris in 1638 from a MS which the preface represented as a recent discovery. Baur, p. viii, states that this text differs considerably from the Latin version by Gerard of Cremona, but that the borrowings of Gundissalinus from Alfarabi and the citations in Vincent of Beauvais’ _Speculum doctrinale_ agree with this 1638 text rather than with Gerard’s. [204] Baur (1903), p. 163. [205] Karpinski (1915), p. 23. [206] Baur, pp. 4-5. [207] Baur, p. 20. [208] Baur, p. 89. [209] See Daniel Morley on the eight parts of astrology in chapter 42 below, p. 177. [210] I have read it in two MSS at Paris, where, however, the text seems faulty: BN 6298, 14th century, fols. 160r-161v, and BN 14700, fols. 328v-330v. It opens, “Scias nihil esse nisi substantia et accidens et creatorem substantie et accidentis in secula.” Printed in _Beiträge_, xix. [211] For Bacon’s views see below, chapter 61. [212] BN 6298, fol. 160v; BN 14700, fol. 330r. “Scientia divina que est finis scientiarum et perfectio earum. Et non restat post illam ulla inquisitio. Ipsa enim est finis ad quem tendit omnis inquisitio et in ea quiescit.”